calumny and oppression, a list of offences more complete than that contained in the second table of the Hebrew Decalogue. The laws of ancient Egypt were, however, more remarkable for the object which their administration had in view than for the wideness of their scope. They are declared to have had for their aim the preservation of life and the redemption of the offender.1 Yet perjury was, as among the early Romans, punished with death, and deservedly so according to the opinion entertained by the Egyptians as to its heinous nature. To speak falsely was in itself esteemed shameful, but to support a falsehood by an oath was a double crime, a violation of faith and a contempt of the gods whose witness was invoked.2 The wickedness ascribed to breach of faith was particularly characteristic of the Egyptians. They valued highly the three cardinal virtues-prudence, fortitude, and temperance, but the fourth, justice, was in their opinion far above the rest. The former were beneficial to the individual more immediately concerned rather than to others, whereas truth or justice influenced men's conduct towards their neighbours, and operated rather for the benefit of society at large. The great cardinal virtue was personified as Thmei, from whom was derived the Greek Themis, the mother of Diké, or justice, and whose name was borne by those who were admitted to the regions of the blessed after the final judgment.* The Egyptians thus placed justice and truth under the sanction of the gods, as they did also the other cardinal virtues and various moral attributes, such as goodness, mercy, love, hope, and charity.5 In doing this their teachers adopted the course which was the most likely 1 Wilkinson, op. cit., vol. ii. p. 40. 3 Do., vol. v. p. 28; ii. p. 31. 5 Do., vol. ii. p. 173. 3 2 Do., 4 Do., vol. v. p. 30. This to ensure that such principles should guide their conduct in life. This was aided, moreover, by the ordeal which every person had to go through after death before he was admitted to the rites of burial. Forty-two assessors, representing the crimes freedom from which betokened the virtuous man, were appointed to try the deceased, if any person brought any accusation against him. If it was found that he had led an evil life, his body was deprived of burial, and his soul was condemned to the much-dreaded degradation of inhabiting the body of an unclean animal.1 But non-burial, although it was a great disgrace in the eyes of the Egyptians, was not that which they the most dreaded. The soul had to appear before the bar of the Judge of the Dead. was considered a fearful ordeal. "The all-scrutinising eye of the Deity was known to penetrate into the innermost recesses of the heart; and they believed that whatever conscience told them they had done amiss was recorded against them in the book of Thoth, out of which they would be judged according to their works, The sculptured walls of every sepulchre reminded them of this solemn ceremony; the rewards held out to the virtuous were reputed to exceed all that man could imagine or desire; and the punishments of the wicked were rendered doubly odious by the notion of a transmigration of the soul into the most hateful and disgusting animals." 2 The great importance attached by the Egyptians to justice, shows that after all theirs was not merely a negative morality. The command to do right is a positive one, and there is little doubt that it had a practical effect over social life, its observance tending to maintain that harmony and good-will which were most essential for the welfare of society, and which existed among the 1 Wilkinson, op. cit., vol. v. p. 426 seq. 2 Do., p. 439. Egyptians probably to a greater degree than among any other of the peoples of antiquity. There is no evidence, however, that the more extended view of man's relation to his fellows embodied in the idea of benevolence was ever actually realised by them. The moral requirement of a life of truth and justice, such as that which was enforced by the Egyptian priests, by no means implied the duty of actively ministering to the necessity of others. The Egyptians, as shown by their deifying the attributes of mercy, love, and charity,1 certainly advanced further in that direction than either the Greeks or the Romans, but with all these peoples alike the passive virtues must be said to have formed the only essential part of morality. Probably the key to the origin and nature of the special phase of morality which distinguished the Egyptians, is to be found in the words which occur in the Confession of Sins: "I am pure, I am pure, I am pure." true significance of this phrase will be seen when we come to treat of the ancient Mysteries, to which they no doubt had reference. The extraordinary influence which the Mysteries had over the life and manners of the Egyptian people is well known. The deity who was thought to preside at them was also the Judge of the Dead,2 and the conduct which entitled the initiated to the privileges of the "second birth," enabled the dead to pass safely through the ordeal of the final judgment. The penalty attending failure to do this was the birth of the soul in the body of an unclean animal, a fate which was keenly dreaded. It was to escape from the "circle of existence" that the Egyptians sought to satisfy in their lives the requirements of the Book of the Dead. Hence the 1 Wilkinson, op. cit., vol. ii. p. 173. The 2 For an account of the "trial of the dead," see Sir Gardner Wilkinson's "Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians," vol. ii. p. 426 seq. The mysteries of Eleusis are supposed to have been derived from those of Osiris, the Egyptian Judge of the Dead. test of moral propriety was with them very different from that which governed the other phases of morals treated of in the preceding pages. With the Hebrews the test of right conduct was agreeableness to the will of Jehovah, with the Romans the welfare of the state, and with the Greeks the perfection of the individual. The Egyptians also tested moral conduct by reference to the individual, but "salvation," and not perfection, was the end which their religious teaching had in view. He only who was pure could hope to enter into the peace of Osiris, and the attainment of spiritual purity was the aim of that teaching, which thus reveals its Eastern origin and its connection with the profound doctrine of "divine emanation." This we have now to treat of, and it is not necessary, therefore, to examine more minutely into the moral ideas embalmed in the religious system of the ancient Egyptians. CHAPTER III. THE DOCTRINE OF EMANATIONS. HITHERTO We have seen that the idea of morality in relation to human action has been founded on the recognition of duty towards some object or objects external to oneself. The performance of such actions as theft, adultery, and murder, is at first refrained from owing to the recognition of the duty not to interfere with the rights which we have learnt that others possess as well as ourselves. So, also, the virtuous action which springs from the principle of benevolence, although founded on sympathy, comes to be recognised as due to the misery and afflictions which threaten to prevent the enjoyment of the property (using this term in its widest sense), with which those rights are associated. It is at this point that a new motive of action is introduced as the result of the gradual development of human culture. Hitherto the flow of benevolence may be said to have been confined within the national barriers, outside of which, except in individual cases, no moral obligation is recognised, and no further moral growth can take place until those barriers are broken down and benevolence thus rendered universal in its objectivity. There was but one mode of effecting this result: the establishment of the principle that the foundation of the moral nature of all actions is duty towards self. The recognition of this principle, which the Greeks well-nigh evolved for themselves,1 must necessarily be most fruitful in its con1 See supra, p. 124, as to the "humanness" of the Greeks. |